THE GREAT NAME:Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.

THE GREAT NAME:guyinjeep16: THE GREAT NAME:MWP is REALLY important because it shows that far bigger and longer fluctuations happen all the time, invalidating the argument made by subby and GAT_00 that there is something to be alarmed about.

"All" the time? Do elaborate please.

I mean in any recent graph (excepting the debunked hockey-stick graph) you can clearly see multiple warm periods and cool periods on multiple scales ranging from months to centuries. You can see many precedents for the 1978-1998 rise. So for that rise to require an anthropogenic explanation, evidence would be needed, because "coincidence value" alone is not compelling (contrary to subby's implication n the headline).

First off, be aware that the current warming trend is somewhat beyond what was seen in the MWP:

From Mann et al. 2008.

More importantly, be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is different from simply detecting a change, and goes beyond simple correlation. The one-sentence explanation is that the current warming trend cannot be explained through natural variability since said variability has been accounted for through an understanding of the processes involved in Earth's energy balance. It's more about understanding the processes responsible instead of just correlation of the sum total of their effects. Keep in mind that this talk of correlation is a bit of a side-show to the actual underlying science.

THE GREAT NAME:And this talk about the increase of around 1C or so isnt half of the problem. Its the energy the oceans are trapping that is the big issue.

Evidence please

I'm not sure where the guy you're responding to was going with that, but what may help is the underlying idea is that if we're talking about heat, atmospheric temperature isn't the only measure of it.

On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).

Since you are unaware of the basics of the attribution of anthropocentric climate change, the most recent IPCC report is a good place to start (link goes to summary of what appears to be a section relevant to your discussion).

THE GREAT NAME:There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Damnhippyfreak:On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).

Schmittner et al. find a temperature difference of 3.3 K between now and the Last Glacial Maximum. 2.2 K is their median estimate of climate sensitivity (temperature change for a doubling of CO2).

Unless you are a motherfarking climate scientist, or at least someone with a solid scientific education in motherfarking atmospheric physics you dipshiat denialists can take your cribbed-from-the-internet charts, paragraphs, and other bullshiat, and can go suck a huge overflowing bucket of syphilitic goat cocks. I am so, utter, completely sick of know-nothing cockbags throwing around charts who couldn't tell you how a farking cloud is formed.

Hey, Dr. Oncologist! My uncle smoked seven packs of cigarettes a day for ninety five years! Hence, smoking doesn't cause cancer! You are so full of shiat! Here's a chart!

Hey, Dr. Climate scientist with a hundred peer-reviewed publications in premiere journals! It was cold in my back yard yesterday, hence global warming is a pile of shiat! Here's a chart! Go fark yourself!

THE GREAT NAME:Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: There is absolutely no evidence for that. Some models and a lot of bluster, that's all. Which is why of course climatists keep falling back to alarmist rubbish like the headline - they've got nothing else. I expect you will rant and get insulting now.

Absolute bollocks. The evidence is undeniable except by complete idiots like you.

"Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere."

From: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

That's a conclusion, not evidence. Climatology is all about conclusions. But when you look for the evidence, you do not find it. Yes the temperature rose a little bit late last century. But that was not, as is suggested, remotely unusual. There is NO evidence that "human activities have contributed substantially to climate change", only the endless clamour of morons concluding it for the wrong reasons. EPA? the reason would be that it's budget has at least doubled due to political interest in AGW. Of course they will drink the cool aid. They will be all too happy to conclude whatever they need to to stay on the bandwagon. But you will not find a shred of evidence in their publications, because it does not exist.

Unfortunately, the bits in bold are as much a "bare-faced lie" as the one you yourself pointed out. Besides the review that the IPCC presents (and that I pointed you towards before), the discussion is active and ongoing in the scientific literature. I mean, I was just reading this paper on this very topic just this morning. It's one thing to argue the merits of different lines of evidence, but it's something else to deny they even exist in the first place.

More importantly, be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is different from simply detecting a change, and goes beyond simple correlation.

If someone doesn't understand how greenhouse gases work, and that adding a bazillion metric shiat-tons of said gases to the atmosphere just might Might MIGHT have an effect on the equilibrium temperature of the earth, then there is absolutely no hope for having any kind of meaningful conversation. The onus is upon those who are "skeptical" to posit why adding greenhouse gases would not be a leading cause of observed rising temperatures, all natural variability aside. Ask any denialist and you'll get some bullshiat about mysterious natural cycles that just haven't been discovered yet, or the sun, or mysterious unicorn farts. Right. When the most blatantly obvious reason - backed by as many studies as you can possibly imagine, from the laboratory, to the field, to theory and modeling, is staring you in the face and you deny it out-of-hand, they you are a flaming dipshiat. And you are most definitely not a scientist.

Does this mean we have all the answers? Of course not! There is much still to be learned. But much like Nate Silver's forecast for the election vs. the "gut" feeling of loony conservitards, reality tends to work itself out regardless of your twisted belief system. I'll take rigorous science and all its messiness over too-stupid-to-realize-how-stupid-you-are douchebaggery any day.

Ambitwistor:Damnhippyfreak: On another note, a change in the global average temperature of 1°C doesn't seem all that much unless you realize that the difference between now and the last ice age may have been as little as 2.2K (Schmittner et al. 2011).

Schmittner et al. find a temperature difference of 3.3 K between now and the Last Glacial Maximum. 2.2 K is their median estimate of climate sensitivity (temperature change for a doubling of CO2).

I thought exactly this before I posted. I then had to double checked it to believe it:

The best-fitting model (ECS2xC = 2.4 K) reproduces well the reconstructed global mean cooling of 2.2 K (within two significant digits), as well as much of the meridional pattern of the zonally averaged temperature anomalies (correlation coefficient r = 0.8) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2, with the black line being the reconstructed temperature.

You're right of course as to the 3.3 K difference from their modelling. I should have specified I was talking about the reconstructed values.

It all depends on which values you use when you are calculating the "average". If you want to use all the data from 1900, it is a little misleading I think as everyone acknowledges that warming happened for a period of time, but appears to have stopped/slowed in 1998. Now, is this value significantly above average for October data since 1998? I think that is the real question of interest. I'm not movitaved enough to go and look it up, but I am guessing no, it isn't.

GAT_00:THE GREAT NAME: GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.

That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.

It's not a trivial assumption. It actually makes a big difference. Your results have no bearing at all on nature because in nature the samples are correlated. Whatever the temperature anomaly this month, next month is most likely to be close to that value. Look up pink noise, random walks, chaos theory etc.

The point was that even with the most bullshiat, optimistic Denier math I could make up, I still couldn't hold up the hypothesis that the planet was not warming.

the debate is not about the idea that the planet is warming, but WHY it is warming. All you have are models that have been hyped up to prove a point that just is not correct.

THE GREAT NAME:Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.

Nope. We get pissed when people have their heads so far up their own assholes they can't even see the evidence when it's presented it to them.

You have not presented evidence for anything except perhaps that my comment you quoted was absolutely bang on the money.

You don't understand how this game is played.The AGWers here are IRREFUTABLE.They're using rhetorical methodologies to create logical arguments.Unfortunately these logical arguments are not based on bomb-proof scientific evidence.There is a huge measure of "belief" and buying into the cultural and professional biases of their profession. However, being academics, they are skilled rhetoricians and accustomed to arguing down on brains that are not fully developed in their young, naive students who lack the courage, the rhetorical skills and professional arguing points to challenge them.They are like the pope: IRREFUTABLE and NEVER WRONG.They will never admit the weakness of their positions, since their professional livlihoods and political standing within the academic community depend on their defending the party line.Careers can be destroyed if they step out of line.

Actually, that 2.2 K is yet a different number; it's the average of SST over ocean and SAT over land. The global SAT change (according to the median fit model), which is what people usually refer to as the global warming/cooling, is the 3.3 K I mentioned before.

HotIgneous Intruder:THE GREAT NAME: Joce678: THE GREAT NAME: Wow people on here who worship the climate religion get pissed when I tell them what they already know - that they don't have the evidence to justify their faith. So, no different to any other kind of religion then.

Nope. We get pissed when people have their heads so far up their own assholes they can't even see the evidence when it's presented it to them.

You have not presented evidence for anything except perhaps that my comment you quoted was absolutely bang on the money.

You don't understand how this game is played.The AGWers here are IRREFUTABLE.They're using rhetorical methodologies to create logical arguments.Unfortunately these logical arguments are not based on bomb-proof scientific evidence.There is a huge measure of "belief" and buying into the cultural and professional biases of their profession. However, being academics, they are skilled rhetoricians and accustomed to arguing down on brains that are not fully developed in their young, naive students who lack the courage, the rhetorical skills and professional arguing points to challenge them.They are like the pope: IRREFUTABLE and NEVER WRONG.They will never admit the weakness of their positions, since their professional livlihoods and political standing within the academic community depend on their defending the party line.Careers can be destroyed if they step out of line.

Ambitwistor:Hunter_Worthington: Unfortunately, by making a partisan issue out of it, the Democrats just make everyone else dig in their heels. What if, instead of wasting money on high speed rail lines no one is going to ride, or solar panels and wind energy, we simply raised gasoline taxes to internalize the negative externality and spend the money on Federal, State, and Local roads? Or, if we implemented a cap and trade system in addition to higher taxes, we spent the money on flood control projects (like wetlands restoration) or addressing these problems.

What are you talking about? Democrats have been trying to internalize the externality with taxes and/or cap-and-trade for over 20 years.

And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

Hunter_Worthington:And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.

THE GREAT NAME:There is evidence that temps rose a little between 1978 and 1998, but there IS NOT any evidence for this being due to human activity.

That 20 year period may be too short for showing statistically significant trend, and I'm not that up on the particular data. My understanding is that longer trend does show significant warming, over the period we've been keeping records. Jon Snow is more likely to have that at his fingertips, if you're actually curious.

guyinjeep16:There isnt one paper disputing it, the worlds scientists are on board.

Well, circa 95% of the climatologists, anyway. And there probably are a couple papers with quibbles.

That Guy...From That Show!:Joce678: MarkEC:2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

Do you know a way for the Earth to warm up all by itself, or is the heat source external?

What "natural forces" can affect global temperature and don't depend on atmospheric composition?

[i30.photobucket.com image 320x320]What do I win?

Um, a wooden spoon to stir your bucket of fail with. The Sun is external and the amount of heating it provides depends on atmospheric composition.

Ambitwistor:Hunter_Worthington: And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell my AP students when they're horribly wrong: No, but thank you for answering.

Actually, that 2.2 K is yet a different number; it's the average of SST over ocean and SAT over land. The global SAT change (according to the median fit model), which is what people usually refer to as the global warming/cooling, is the 3.3 K I mentioned before.

Ah, I see where we're differing here. When I think about global temperature, I consider both SAT and SST as HadCRUT (by necessity) and GISTEMP (with their land-ocean temp index) do so as well.

The way I'm reading the paper is that the 2.2 K difference is the one provided by just the reconstructed paleoclimate data (which is, as you stated and unsurprisingly copmprises both SAT and SST), while the 3.3 K number is just SAT from their model. We're both right.

For interest's sake, incorporating both SST and SAT from their model gives a difference of 2.6 K (presumably including the warming from the 120m sea-level lowering that isn't included in the 3.3 K previously mentioned):

Averaging over all grid points in our model leads to a higher global mean temperature (SST over ocean, SAT over land) change (-2.6 K) than using only grid points where paleoclimate data are available (-2.2 K), suggesting that the existing data set is still spatially biased toward low latitudes and/or oceans. Increased spatial coverage of climate reconstructions is therefore necessary to improve ECS2xC estimates.

Joce678:That Guy...From That Show!: Joce678: MarkEC:2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

Do you know a way for the Earth to warm up all by itself, or is the heat source external?

What "natural forces" can affect global temperature and don't depend on atmospheric composition?

[i30.photobucket.com image 320x320]What do I win?

Um, a wooden spoon to stir your bucket of fail with. The Sun is external and the amount of heating it provides depends on atmospheric composition.

The only fail is your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the amount of heating the Sun provides.

I'm not sure what stretch of reasoning that you believe that the atmosphere of the earth can go back in time and change the amount of energy the Sun is generating...but i'm sure there's some science behind your claims right?

I am serious Joce678, if you have evidence that backs your claim that the atmosphere of the earth controls the heat output of the sun I'd love to hear it. Global Alarmists do believe this but i've never seen one actually back it up due to the atmosphere not having a time machine to accomplish this.

I think the vast, vast majority of evidence argues against them (when they're not outright flawed, or when "skeptics" overstate or misrepresent what they say), but they do exist. We probably shouldn't pretend that they don't.

/had to go to some places of questionable quality to get that//need science eye bleach///the_stupid_it_burns.jpg

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

Ambitwistor:Hunter_Worthington: And then they waste the money on boondoggles like high speed rail, ethanol, etc. so forth and so on.

High speed rail is irrelevant to your point because it's not intended to solve global warming, and ethanol is a Congressional handout to the ag lobby in Red states. The policies that Democrats actually wanted to solve global warming, like taxes or cap-and-trade, have been blocked in Congress.

Taxes never have and never will solve a climate problem. Neither will cap and trade. Those are just ways to redistribute the world's wealth.

tinfoil-hat maggie:Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

True that, it's gonna be a shame when we lose the Greenland ice sheets it's gonna be a real tragedy if we lose the Antarctic ice.

At the rate we are going, the loss of Greenland's ice sheets will happen unless action is taken.

But do bear in mind, the process will take a long time. You will be dead by the time Greenland's ice sheets are completely gone. It will take hundreds of years to take out Antarctica. Of course whoever is living at that time will really despise us for allowing it to happen.

That Guy...From That Show!:Joce678: MarkEC:2. The "deniers" are correct and CO2 is only a minor player and natural forces are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of how much CO2 we put in the air.

Do you know a way for the Earth to warm up all by itself, or is the heat source external?

What "natural forces" can affect global temperature and don't depend on atmospheric composition?

What do I win?

A plaque that points out what a stupid thing it is to think that scientists don't take the Sun into account.

The output of the Sun is observed and measured. It variability has been taken into account. The Sun can NOT explain the increasing temperatures.

But in the mean time, humans have measurably increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Unless one thinks the laws of physics will be suspended for our benefit, that carbon dioxide will have a greenhouse effect, that will have a warming influence.

That Guy...From That Show!:Really, I'm serious, you know that he's wrong an you're wrong why not just admit it and progress from there instead of childishly attacking those who prove you wrong?

I know you're serious that's why I know you're not just an idiot but also an ass.

While a pedantic and moronic interpretation of "amount of heating it provides" could be that he was suggesting that the earth somehow changes the sun's output ... only a child would actually insist that this was what was meant by the statement.

Another interpretation,one which is not wholly moronic, is that the phrase "amount of heating it provides" was referring to how much of the sun's energy made it through the atmosphere to add to the planet's net energy.

Not surprisingly, you choose to rant on and on about how your moronic interpretation must be the one he meant. Let me guess: Are you a denier??

A perfect description of you and your ilk:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Am I the only one that's bothered by the poor use of "average" in the headline? Not poor so much as wrong. Both the Fark headline and the article's headline. NOAA got it right of course, but they obviously understand math. I'm going to start submitting headlines like, "Last Three Months 50 degrees (hotter or colder) Than Average)". I'm sure I can find some crazy sampling period to make that accurate.

The alarmist part of the graph (the short spike at the very right) is made up of different data, from different sources as the rest of the graph. All the graph is showing you is the heat island effect as well as cherry-picking by pseudoscientists who have a pro AGW agenda. There was indeed a rise between 1978 and 1998, but it was small, and there was actually a fall before it, and temps have levelled out since.

HighZoolander:THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: You have no evidence showing that the current rise is anthropogenic.

Wow, this is completely and utterly false. I can only assume that you're either completely uninformed on the subject or abjectly lying about it. Which one?I

I'll say it again. There is evidence that temps rose a little between 1978 and 1998, but there IS NOT any evidence for this being due to human activity. If I am wrong, cite some.

This has already been covered a bit in the thread, but here is another summary:

Here, with links to original sources too

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels

So here is some evidence - would you care to address it?

OK, so this was a brave attempt. But 1. is merely stating what we already know, and says nothing about global warming. 2. and 4. are obvious (its no different than saying every time we take a breath were breathing in a molecule Napoleon breathed out). 3. is kind-of irrelevant, and only dropped in there to sound alarmist. CO2 has risen by about 70 parts per MILLION but oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. So not much to be alarmed about there but nice try.